| Author |
Message |
Sheppy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding capture
card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame editing, get a
Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi editing, but the
files are really big.
| Quote: | Then frame by frame edit isnt there...
You might try VideoReDo www.VideoReDo.com it is the new
guy and tries harder.
I love womble, its effective and very fast.and cuts are a breeze.
Is Womble better,easy to work then MF2 or MF3?
The problem I 've had with both is the removing of frames of unwanted
video.
Nothing is better than the win2000 capture program for that card,
use
it
and
educate yourself, I have created many dvds with it.I use:
Win2000 to capture.
Womble for editing
DVDWorkshop for chapter, etc.
You wont need any other software.
Can anyone tell me if this is correct,
Brought a wintv pvr250 capture card, this comes with moviefactory2.
Not really happy with this set-up, so as I've had some success with
capturing vhs tape using vitualdub, tempgnec xpress and author,
tried
to
use
this card with vitualdub but it does not seem to recognize the
card.
Is
it
not supported or have i got to D/L something else to make it see
the
card?
Cheers |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luminos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418dea61$0$13342$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding
capture card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame
editing, get a Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi
editing, but the files are really big.
|
Not completely accurate. The output of Mpeg2 to the screen is standard
frame rate. Very good algorithms, such as VideoReDo, provide frame accurate
editing by expanding the encoding and then reconstituting the original
streams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
Womble does fbf perfectly
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418dea61$0$13342$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding
capture
card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame editing, get a
Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi editing, but the
files are really big.
Then frame by frame edit isnt there...
You might try VideoReDo www.VideoReDo.com it is the new
guy and tries harder.
I love womble, its effective and very fast.and cuts are a breeze.
Is Womble better,easy to work then MF2 or MF3?
The problem I 've had with both is the removing of frames of
unwanted
video.
Nothing is better than the win2000 capture program for that card,
use
it
and
educate yourself, I have created many dvds with it.I use:
Win2000 to capture.
Womble for editing
DVDWorkshop for chapter, etc.
You wont need any other software.
Can anyone tell me if this is correct,
Brought a wintv pvr250 capture card, this comes with
moviefactory2.
Not really happy with this set-up, so as I've had some success
with
capturing vhs tape using vitualdub, tempgnec xpress and author,
tried
to
use
this card with vitualdub but it does not seem to recognize the
card.
Is
it
not supported or have i got to D/L something else to make it see
the
card?
Cheers
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sheppy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
This could be taken either way - no one here should be able to argue against
the fact that MJpeg & DV-Avi allow full frame by frame editing - but to say
that it's possible to do full frame by frame editing with Mpeg2 is a matter
of opinion.
Because of the fact that Mpeg2 has already removed many frames from the
original source video stream and replaced them with details about how the
frames change from frame to frame it's true you CAN edit frame by frame from
an Mpeg2 source - but it's like editing predicted results from what the
genuine result is, mistakes occur, & thus quality degrades very quickly -
far more quickly editing video streams without predicted frames.
| Quote: | Womble does fbf perfectly
If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding
capture
card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame editing, get
a
Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi editing, but the
files are really big.
Then frame by frame edit isnt there... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
I do dvd authoring mostly from my laserdisc collection, my results with
womble are far superior to anything I have used so far, I am very picky
about quality, although I do realize that everyones definition of quality is
different.
I used M2Edit pro, which as you may know is really expensive..womble is far
better and faster IMHO.
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418e5613$0$5661$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | This could be taken either way - no one here should be able to argue
against
the fact that MJpeg & DV-Avi allow full frame by frame editing - but to
say
that it's possible to do full frame by frame editing with Mpeg2 is a
matter
of opinion.
Because of the fact that Mpeg2 has already removed many frames from the
original source video stream and replaced them with details about how the
frames change from frame to frame it's true you CAN edit frame by frame
from
an Mpeg2 source - but it's like editing predicted results from what the
genuine result is, mistakes occur, & thus quality degrades very quickly -
far more quickly editing video streams without predicted frames.
Womble does fbf perfectly
If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding
capture
card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame editing,
get
a
Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi editing, but the
files are really big.
Then frame by frame edit isnt there...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Papageno
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418e5613$0$5661$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | This could be taken either way - no one here should be able to argue
against
the fact that MJpeg & DV-Avi allow full frame by frame editing - but to
say
that it's possible to do full frame by frame editing with Mpeg2 is a
matter
of opinion.
Because of the fact that Mpeg2 has already removed many frames from the
original source video stream and replaced them with details about how the
frames change from frame to frame it's true you CAN edit frame by frame
from
an Mpeg2 source - but it's like editing predicted results from what the
genuine result is, mistakes occur, & thus quality degrades very quickly -
far more quickly editing video streams without predicted frames.
Womble does fbf perfectly
If you need frame by frame editing then do not get a Mpeg2 encoding
capture
card - not viable since Mpeg2 does not allow frame by frame editing,
get
a
Matrox or the Cannopus AVDC for that - MJpeg or DV-Avi editing, but the
files are really big.
Then frame by frame edit isnt there...
|
The notion that mpeg2 can't do frame-by-frame arose a few years ago. The
limited computing capacity of the typical PC at that time was over-burdened
by the need to convert the mpeg2 data into full frame data. MJPEG was
popular because that conversion was not needed. But, as you say, the files
were BIG.
Today, with faster PCs, that objection largely disappears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Maltby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418e5613$0$5661$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | This could be taken either way - no one here should be able to argue
against the fact that MJpeg & DV-Avi allow full frame by frame editing -
but to say that it's possible to do full frame by frame editing with Mpeg2
is a matter of opinion.
Because of the fact that Mpeg2 has already removed many frames from the
original source video stream and replaced them with details about how the
frames change from frame to frame it's true you CAN edit frame by frame
from an Mpeg2 source - but it's like editing predicted results from what
the genuine result is, mistakes occur, & thus quality degrades very
quickly - far more quickly editing video streams without predicted frames.
|
Nonsense, even if there were any point to your statement, the
impact of that tiny amount of degradation imposed on the 1/2sec
of a single GOP could not be noticed. As the new frame accurate
MPEG editors re-build the effected GOP, they have all the data
contained in the original GOP to work with, as well as data from
the two adjacent GOP. There is very, very, very little; if any, that
can be lost.
We are talking about what the video well look like, not what
some theoretical viewer who can see each frame in isolation as
it streams by, would see. Your point, as little as there is to it,
has no real-world impact.
Luck;
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luminos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:53 am Post subject:
Re: Just to confirm? |
|
|
"Sheppy" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:418e5613$0$5661$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
| Quote: | This could be taken either way - no one here should be able to argue
against the fact that MJpeg & DV-Avi allow full frame by frame editing -
but to say that it's possible to do full frame by frame editing with Mpeg2
is a matter of opinion.
Because of the fact that Mpeg2 has already removed many frames from the
original source video stream and replaced them with details about how the
frames change from frame to frame it's true you CAN edit frame by frame
from an Mpeg2 source - but it's like editing predicted results from what
the genuine result is, mistakes occur, & thus quality degrades very
quickly - far more quickly editing video streams without predicted frames.
|
My point is this: Mpeg2 is designed on psychophysical principles that,
under the conditions of standard TV playback, the Mpeg2 stream should be
impreceptibly different to most people than the original DV (which is, by
the way, already compressed). Thus, editing the perceptuall impreceivable
is very little different than using the DV, as long as good algorithms are
used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in